Re: Cooperating in systems of oppression
- From: Paul Wallich <pw@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Dec 2007 10:35:08 -0500
Guy Barry wrote:
On Dec 26, 9:15 pm, Paul Wallich <p...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Guy Barry wrote:
Is there an agreed definition of "professional"? I see the term usedIn the US, anyway, it means pretty much whatever an employer wants it to
all the time, but I've never really known what it means. It used to
mean merely that you were paid for what you did (the opposite of
"amateur"), but in many contexts it seems to have morphed into a term
only applying to those who do certain types of white-collar jobs.
mean for purposes of not paying overtime. Crucial case was a some cub
reporters in the mid-80s, who wanted overtime for 70-hour weeks, during
which they did mostly menial jobs under tight supervision. But reporting
was considered a professional category, so they continued getting $3 an
hour...
Exploitation by the back door, then. Funny how some people will
accept poor work conditions because they're persuaded they're somehow
"superior".
And because there's a reserve army of the unemployed. "Cub-reporter" and "intern" and "assistant" positions are de facto the only way onto the ladder for professional advancement at companies in certain fields (publishing and politics probably the best known) and you either have to be willing to endure serious privation or else (watch the inherited privilege) have parents who are willing to subsidize the investment in your future.
The unions have another reason (in addition to
pay issues) to insist that people be classified as non-exempt: anyone
who is exempt by reason of performing supervisory duties, such as
scheduling other workers or telling them what to do, can be excluded
from union membership because they're "management".
Can be *excluded*? Don't workers have the right to join a union if
they so wish?
Not in the US. And probably not in other countries as well. And as a general principle it makes sense -- you don't want a situation where all the bosses, who will ultimately be sitting (in person or proxy) on the other side of the negotiating table, being members of the union, able to run for leadership positions, privy to all the union's information and plans if not setting those plans, and so forth. You could have managers in a different union (or different local) from their subordinates, I suppose.
So calling all experienced people management reduces the pool of people who might vote for union representation, and also reduces the power of unions at the negotiating table, because the union represents fewer people and typically doesn't represent the people with the inhouse knowledge required to keep the place operating during a strike.
(The National Labor Relations Board, which arbitrates disputes over stuff like this, has been something of a sick joke for the past 25 years, although the law it implements doesn't help. For example, if a US company fires someone for union activity, and a complaint is brought and eventually decided in favor of the fired worker, the punishment is that the company has to rehire the worker. Sometimes in extreme cases the company is required to cough up back pay and benefits.)
paul
.
- References:
- Re: Growing up gifted
- From: kmd
- Cooperating in systems of oppression
- From: kmd
- Re: Cooperating in systems of oppression
- From: Guy Barry
- Re: Growing up gifted
- Prev by Date: Re: Growing up gifted
- Next by Date: Re: Growing up gifted
- Previous by thread: Re: Cooperating in systems of oppression
- Next by thread: Re: Cooperating in systems of oppression
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
